from a rather path-breaking trip to the sahel, so she may be able to share some perspective about the regional security concerns affecting the countries of interest to this panel. alexis? in thank you, chris, and thanks to the council for this very timely discussion. i've been asked to say a few words about algeria and in particular, questions of anticipated leadership transitions, political dynamics and algeria's role in regional security which chris touched on. ..

>> various observers sought to answer the question why algeria has not had its own arab spring given high levels of dissatisfaction with the government system and leadership. there's undoubtedly several factors at work including algerians memory of the extreme violence of the 1990s following algeria's own democratic opening in 1998 which was mirrored by uprisings in tunisia, e just a minute, -- egypt, and elsewhere. the regime that reflects a

figure like gadhafi, the availability of oil revenues to the centers, and the security apparatus allowing free expression and political participation which in 2011 avoided excessive use of force in containing public demonstrations and rioting in algier. while they are plausible explanation and point to algerians's exceptionalism, i feel there's a lack of reliable information on the diversity of views that algerians hold of their system of government, of their history, and of their preferred path forward. the inner workings of their politics is opaque and constant source of debate and speculation, even within political connected circles. i think analytic modesty is

called for, and, after all, it would have been plausible to explain away the upheaval in tunisia in late 2010, for example. instead, i think we might ask what does instability look like in algeria? there does not appear to be a sizable appetite among algerians for mass upheaval. popular upheaval. the state, meanwhile, has shown itself able to contain local unrest, has largely dealt with internal insurgency, and appears able to avert opposition. what is it less equipped to deal with? what signs should we look for to suggest or not a coming shift in the status quo? do any algerians or individuals enjoy sufficient popular credibility they are in a position to influence events from outside the system?

algiers leadership is poised for a significant transition. as they confront a shift that is taking place, as members of the revolutionary generation either retire or pass away having been the dominant force in politics for half a century that it's no secret aging and ill and widely expected not to run again when the term is up in 2014. he could even step down beforehand, and there's per sis tent rumors to that effect. the battle to succeed him is on among members of the political elite, but the outcome of that battle is certainly undetermined, i think, at this point. most observers expect the military to play some role in the choice of his successor, but the military's been subject to a cultural shift over the last decade, and, it, too, is coming up to transitions among senior ranks. the military chief the staff is

in his 80 while the mysterious and powerful head of the military intelligence is in his 7 # 0s also rumored to be ill. given the events in the region over the last 18 months, we have to ask ourselves whether we are able to expect best practices hold in the future, and also to interrogate our own assumptions of regime strength and capacity. transition a bit to regional security, as chris mentioned, i was in west africa last week, and i would note that there is immense speculation and uncertainty in the region regarding the security stance in mali. leaders consumed as they are for position and parochial interest, domestic security issues, and a general suspicion of western motivations with regard to mali,

libya, and elsewhere, they have not articulated a clear approach to northern mali where two associated insurgent groups are active in a territory roughly the size of france that lies just across the border from algeria. officials admitted conflicting signals towards the stance of a proposed regional military intervention in northern mali supported by france and morocco. factors lie the high level decision making, competing for interest within the inner circles of government authority, as well as the current focus among algeria's political class on domestic succession issues act as a hindrance to position itself as a leader on security issues and counterterrorism. algeria reenforced security along its border with mali which

actually started in 2012, in early 2012, following a terrorist attack in the southern garrisson town, but they have not held it to its political advantage. there is hope in some quarters in the region as well as in washington and paris that algeria could be playing a constructive role in the anticipated military intervention should it materialize, however, others are skeptical as algeria's motives and interests and intentions. i'll leave it at that, and perhaps we can touch on some more in the q&a, thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, thank you very much, alexis helping us understand the dog that didn't bark and perhaps gave us a frame work for understanding whether that's true in the future, and you laid out, really, an uncertain path ahead to show the

interrelation between algeria domestic politics and region concern. we'll wrap our panel here with two overviews. the first provided by dr. paul sullivan who joins us for the last panel. dr. sullivan is going to give us an economic, sort of tour horizon of the region helping us understand the sparks that help drive change and may yet derail it. dr. sullivan? >> i'm not sure i agree that dog may not bark sometime in the future. algeria had its problems in the early 1990s. morocco has great unemployment. one of the issue all countries face is significant unemployment, and declining hopes of the youth. these things take time. yes, they do, but i have great concern that the youth and many other people in these countries do not have parties for the time to let this -- patience for the time to let

this work out. a paper i'm writing based on this is called "the race against time." before i give my talk just about anywhere i give a caveat. these are my opinions alone, do not represent the united states government or any other organization i'm a part of, and therefore, now, i can be a troublemaker. i'm focusing on the countries of egypt, libya, and tunisia, and focus more on egypt because i spent 20 years on the country, lived there for six years, and there for six weeks during the summer time. algeria and morocco have been peaceful, but don't count on it. algeria and libya or net oil exporters to help them get on their feet if they do not focus too much on that. as the ambassador said, libya's back to 1.4 million barrels a

day, almost miraculous given the countries that have gone through things like this. algeria produces about the same amount of oil as libya, but it has six times the people so there's a lot more people to spread that across. algeria produces 2.3 cubic feet of gas a year, and if you do the math, it's a billion cubic feet per person in both countries, and if distributed nicely, everyone would be well-off, but we all know that's not the way it is. egypt is a net oil importer. it is a gas exporter, but right now, mostly lng because the pipelines are not exactly secure these days. the pipeline to israel has been shut. most of egypt's natural gas goes to the demands of its 86 and growing million people, and it's a growing demand for natural gas

because there's massive subsidies in the use of natural gas making of the situation unsustainable. tunisia and morocco is net energy importers so they are hit with the price of oil and increasing price of natural gas in the region unlike prices of natural gas in the united states is going up. all of these rely on energy subsidies, unsustainable in their budgets. they are frying their budgets on this, and the imf actually asked egypt to control this, and if you look in the history of subsidies of egypt, whenever the imf asked them to take sub subss you off, there's been problems. you name it. there is a chance for the united states to advise on targeted subsidies for energy, but, then again, when we think about it, are we good at that ourselves?

not really. if these subsidies are taken off in an awkward fashion or too quickly, there will be trouble in the streets. much like the subsidies on bread or anything else. it's a pocketbook issue. the revolutions were, in many ways, pocketbook issues. unemployment, shortages of bread -- remember the bread riots just before this whole thing started? what was the problem? unemployment and a dreadful economic situation for most of the youth. even though many people may say that the macro economies of some of the countries are doing well, macro economies do not point to the life of the youth. it's the microeconomics of desperation. walk around shubra and cairo or

the poorer parts of algiers, and you see what i'm talking about. a person who drove us to the airport, someone who we knew for years from cairo, was in tears. no work, no work for him, no work for his son, no work for his cousin. egypt is trying to get back on to its feet as other countries are after dictator that failed and failed again. they got hit with the revolutionary economics that most countries get hit with. there was a great deal of hope amongst the people in egypt, tiew tunisia, and libya that their economies will get back on their feet after this. well, that's really not the way revolutions work historically. usually, they are difficult times that last for a long time. almost all of these countries

need great economic reforms and deep long lasting economic reforms. i've been trying to listen to what president morsi and others say on economic reform, and all i hear is confused ideology, and what i've seen is nothing, no reform, no change, no action, and up employment is getting worse, and the kids are probably feeling less hopeful than even prior to the revolution. tourism is down, and statements of egypt have not helped in the country. suez canal revenues doing well. i spent time watching ships go through the canal. inflation, initially, is okay, but this is not what i saw in the six weeks i was in egypt. there's huge pressures on the currencies of the states. most particularly, the egyptian

sound. revenues dropped to one-third before the revolution. initial food shocks taken care of by importing increasingly expensive food -- wheat and so forth. again, hitting the budgets further by imports expensive food and subsidizing it. the food economics and pretty much the entire economics at the microeconomic scale in countries and tunisia are unsustainable. you can get money from the imf, americans, chinese, the e.u., and the russians, but the system needs to change to make this sustainable. some villages have significant water problems. when i was in the countryside, this summer in egypt, six to eight hours of electricity is all you got. there's the traffic of cairo, which the president said at one time he could cure within a

hundred days. i don't know how that's going to work. they need investment in infrastructure, water, transport, and more. what they need more than anything else is not for the americans to teach them about governance or to be schooled about how to run countries, but they need clinics. they need improvements in the health system, jobs, roads, need education, and investment producing jobs, not just buying land and turning old factories into apartment complexes. there's a great deal of opportunity for the united states and others to help these country, but they have to focus on the real problems, not the problems that they think are the problems. thank you. >> thank you, dr. sullivan, you know, helping us be aware of the red flags ahead, understanding

the resources that a couple countries have to bring to bear to meet the considerable con straints and challenges they face, and, also, outlining an agenda for the future. for our commentator on the panel, another overview, the founder and president of the center known to many of you -- really the only american think tank exclusively focused on north africa, development as a specialist, but his expertise make him well qualified to be the commentator today. please welcome him, thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for bringing this together, this great event. thank you for the invitation and for allowing me to comment on the various presentations.

i would like to say a few things about the -- one of the questions posed by dr. anthony is there a model to follow? can morocco be ad model to follow? can tunisia be a model? can we follow that food eel? i would like to look at tunisia compared them to egypt, because there are several quite a few similarityies. you mentioned, the revolutions, same in tunisia. the state institutions, state agency have survived and performed the usual service delivery function, water, electricity, ect., school system was working more or less, education system i have to say, the health systems as well,

ect.. we owe that to the, i believe, the -- we're dealing with two nation states, one of the few nation states in the arab world. there's a long history of faithful nations in tunisia and egypt back to the 19th century with reformists at that time. in both cases, also, the islamists are involved. in tunisia, we have a process very aptly described, and in egypt as well and you pointed out that there's little change in -- i'm under the impression it's the same in tunisia as well, especially on the economic front. there's no -- they came to power in tunisia with an agenda basically. they didn't participate in the revolution. they didn't need it.

some people say they have high revolution -- form a coalition government with two secular parties, but they tried to inject as much as possible of sharia law in the constitution, but they couldn't. they were opposed by groups like islamist groups and intervention, thanked god, and they want to turn the sharia law into the constitution, but they had to give up on that, to criminalize -- to criminalize the unculting religions -- it didn't work -- sorry, forget the

term to that, ect., ect., but they have not done much since then. they did not address challenges they were supposed to. neither in egypt. they screen is the outcome of a failed economic development,. one suggested by the imf, world bank, the u.s. as well, and major other donors, particularly in other -- what is needed now is a new economic model more inclusive, that provides jobs to this millions, literally, to those unemployed, and many have college degrees. they don't find jobs. i have looked a little bit at what could be done in e egypt

like that in terms of inclusive development in the agricultural sector, why not? let me talk to you about this very briefly, about my -- egypt economy, is, as you know, badly suffering from unemployment, on the rise, according to the imf, rejection of the egyptian economy, real gdp growth rate at 5% in 2009 and 2010 expected to grow at 1% or 2% in 2011 which is bad. because of the economic slow down as well as return of egyptian migrants from libya, unemployment, one of the main reasons of the egyptian -- for the egyptian revolution that took place in early 2011 is on the rise. to keep pace with demographic trends, egypt needs to create 700,000 new jobs. new sustainable jobs every year.

with respect to geography, some of the poorest are concentrated in rural southern upper egypt, 56% of egyptians live in rural areas, more than 78% extremely poor live there. the situation's acute in upper egypt where 95% of egypt's poorest villages are located so here this is why i mentioned the sector that can be used to create jobs; however, the economy at large and agriculture sector, indeed, in particular, have a strong potential to provide incollusive development mod -- inclusive development model compromising 32% total of the country's labor force and 14% of the total gdp, not only that

this sector has the poorest in the value chapes, but provides opportunities for otherwise marginalized groups such as women. the agriculture sector in egypt is one where women have a participation rate of 35% compared to a national work force average of only 24% so supporting what some economy -- economists call social entrepreneurship, an inclusive business model is what i recommend could be helping poverty and rural development provided by the market, and only by the market and current state of solutions to remedy failure and other mechanism is up doubtedly needed. one that tests new ideas and invests in existing models of work and have proven effective in order to increase their impact.

one -- why not thinking about lounging created some special fund for youth employment to which all countries could contribute. some oil companies -- in order to alleviate unemployment in especially the non-oil producing countries like egypt primarily, tunisia and morocco. they can help, contribute to setting the best businesses to be set up, and that can be integrated back to egypt, the agricultural sector, and the agriculture supply chain improving food processing, management, and other domains. this is my suggestion, a very brief one, about how to

alleviate the issue of youth unemployment, especially the young people who have college degrees, don't have jobs, you know, to create a business, we need start up money, and this i was talking about can contribute to providing the technical know-how to set up a business and a little bit money of start it. you wanted me to talk about morocco? >> we'll save that for the q&a. >> which has not been addressed, but i really wanted to stress the economic woes of the spring to be dealt with. thank you very much. >> you did it, thank you. [applause] >> thank you, doctor. we'll turn now to the questions from the panel and perhaps

dr. anthony's how questions. the first question is for the ambassador, and we heard a lot about this afternoon about challenges facing arab youth. what specific agenda items are or ought to be on the new cabinet's agenda for helping libyan youth to seize the opportunities the revolution has presented? >> well, i think, you mentioned in the country producing 1.6 million of crude oil, you know, and of population less than 7 million people that unemployment is 30%, this is a very serious issue. this is one of the main issue for the new government to handle. we need a lot of training. we need a lot of participation. we need to create, besides the

oil, another national resource. i think we have potential to be very important country in the field of tourism. we have 2,000 kilometers of the beautiful warm water of the mediterranean, and the main other issue is education. i think the education is in the last case -- besides others that was really destroyed. we need a lot of strictenning, create opportunities among the people to give them more chance in education. we have here about 1700, and we have in europe another few thousand, but i think we need to give them more training, not only the citizens, but in the government departments. the main thing, i believe, besides the oil industry, besides, i think tourism is a opportunity to create more jobs,

but before we do that, we have to bring them comprehensive training in everything. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. dr. sullivan, how would you assess the european response to the economic challenges? is there are coherent policy put forward, and if not, what would you prescribe? >> no, there is no coordinated policy or comprehensive or even understandable, it seems. things are # still trying to be worked out, and, of course, there are questions here in the u.s. about where some of the countries might be going considering some of the comments by some of the leadership and some of the internal activities for the violence on september 11th, and threw off a lot of people to think about how to help egypt.

there was a large delegation of business people looking to invest in egypt at that time. the timing couldn't have been worse. important for the united states to invest in egypt for the private sector to invest in egypt, for the government to invest in learning about egypt? absolutely, yes. is it important for the united states government to help libya develop with the education that the ambassador mentioned, in the clippics, in the investment, in the roads, the alternative industries? absolutely crucial to do this. we need to focus on this it could help to have coalitions with the europeans, but the europeans are in a somewhat par situation now. we have to keep the eye on the ball now. we may be in a moment of debt and deficit in the country, but with the natural oil mentioned

today, all of this could be resolvedded. we are coming back. this is coming back in six to eight years if we do. if we don't, we are going to lose big time, and my sense is in the intermediate period where the government can't do this, the private sector needs to step in, and the government needs to help them step in. >> thank you for that. [applause] okay, so, we only have a very few minutes left. standing between you and a nice reception. [laughter] i'll ask how durable do you believe that the bargain of negotiated change model that mori rock --

morocco is under going, and what red flags or obstacles do you see down the road for morocco? thank you. >> i think it's -- i would -- >> is that on? >> yeah. same issue, i'm going to repeat it. it's tied to economic recovery, development, and job creations. apparently, morocco is going through an economic crisis. its main partner is europe, as you know, so they trade a lot with europe who is in crisis, there is less trade with them so morocco economics is hampered. by that, recently, the king of morocco went on tour to cdc, to

the gulf countries to seek funding from qatar, saudi arabia, and other gulf statesment apparently, he was able to secure funding, but unfortunately, most of this funding goes to tourism, perhaps to a certain extent infrastructure, and is -- real estate, mostly speculative. it's not productive. little money's invested in creating jobs. again, other development model should be indigenous. morocco should divide it themselves, a democrat morocco with everyone involved, everyone on board at the local level, people can -- with the help of experts, like myself -- [laughter] can divide their own economic development model that's regionally, locally grounded, and i think that would be the solution, but morocco is in the relatively difficult situation now because of that. >> alexis, difficult situation

with economics as the determining factor? >> i mean, i agree with that, with that analysis. i think on a political level, there's also the question of how far the current situation can be extended where you have a fundamental ambiguity for who is responsible for major decision making at the top of the state. is it the monarchy, the pgd led coalition government, is it third parties who don't hold formal positions? i think that right now ewe see a situation where the morocco public is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the morocco and pgd who both have quite a bit of -- who both benefit from quite a bit of public good will. on the other hand, you know, as the economic challenges persist and as the political situation is ambiguous, we can wonder what lies down the road. >> thank you very much. that brings our panel to a close. i'd like to thank, ask you to

join me in thanking our panel, our speakers. [applause] >> we have a lovely reception this evening hosted by the ambassador of jordan, looking forward to that, and also, an early start tomorrow morning. u.s. views from ambassador jim smith followed by the arab-u.s. relations' view from the league of arab states which has a brand new ambassador here in washington, and then, of course, the palestinian future focusing on that as well as the gtc countries in yemen and the what has been done in terms of the department of state and others trying to double u.s. exports internationally and globally, but with special reference to the arab world. on top of business finance,

human resource development, and iran, features here in the afternoon as well as does the view the of the u.s.-arab relationship from the arab media. i thank all of you for being here today. see you this evening and tomorrow. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> downsizing, watching it live, one of 10,000 homes they are trying to get done in the next four years over the course of the four years of may your being termed, these are houses never coming back. the able demo, these houses are not coming back. nobody lives in them. >> not right now, no. one family every 20 minutes moving out. >> it's going back to the prairie, and these houses disappear from the landscape? >> yeah, 90,000 now ready to go. >> recently, actually, 164 firefighters laid off as a downsizing, as part of the effort for mayor to get the

finances under control in the city so firefighters that detroit needs because it must have the highest case of arson in the country, these guys are laid off. about two weeks later, 100 guys rehired, and when you look to find out where the money came from, it's the department of homeland security has a fund for things like that, and i don't want to, you know, overstate, but i was -- that's something you want to think about. the department of homeland security needed to step in to keep detroit, you know, safe as it could be for the moment. it could be a lot safer, but, so we're talking about i wonder, and i wondered in making the film, we've seen the auto industry bailout, the bank bailout. are we headed into an era of bailout of cities? is there such a thing as a failed city? >> for with heidi sunday at eight on c-span's "q&a."

>> the supreme court expected to hear two cases next week that could affect privacy rights and the ban on unreasonable searches. constitutional law scholars discuss the upcoming florida versus hardiness and both deal with questions on privacy and dog sniffing and what constitutes a legal search using the techniques on the fourth amendment's ban against illegal searches. they hear the cases on october 31st. [background sounds]

>> good morning. i'm steve benjamin, the president of the national association of criminal defense lawyers. one of the rights that define us as a country is our freedom from warrantless government surveil lapse in the privacy of our home. with the use of dogs and advanced technology means that the walls within which we live and sleep are no longer sufficient to provide the privacy we value. next week, the supreme court will hear arguments in two cases concerning the use of dogs and asking whether the promise of the fourth amendment can protect our privacy in the way our homes no longer can. nacdl filed briefs in both cases because we understand our fourth amendment freedom is becoming a meaningless ideal we are powerless to protect, and because this is what we do as criminal defense lawyers. this is how we protect the rights of us all. when law-abiding citizens are

subjected to unlawful searches producing no eve of crime, they have no recourse. they have no remedy other than a letter to the editor or an angry complaint. the only time that we have the opportunity to vindicate the rights that all citizens of this country enjoy is when app unlawful police raid or search produces evidence of a crime and a criminal prosecution results, and it is then, and only then, that we have the opportunity to challenge government and say that there is a limit to what government can do, and one of those important limits is a privacy and sanctity of our own homes. this is what we do as criminal defense lawyers. by speaking for and representing those criminally accused, we protect the fundmental rights of every one of us, the rights that define us as a country and as a people. that is why we have acted in this case, in both of the cases, and that is what you will be seeing next week when the

supreme court hears the arguments. we are joined today by david savage, the supreme court reporter for "the los angeles times" the chicago tribune," a non-lawyer, but an expert since 1986 on the united states supreme court, and he will lead this distinguished panel in a discussion of what you will be hearing next week and why these issues are so important us to us. david, we're honored to have you here. thank you very much. >> well, it's good to be here. you know, every month that the court, there's always a certain amount of grouching in the courtroom. when there's a couple cases on, uninteresting, insignificant, downright boring, always referred to as "the dogs." this is different. we have to cases on the same day next wednesday, and they are anything but insignificant or uninteresting. we've got a good group here to talk about these cases. i was impressed with the briefs

that were filed in this case. i think the basic issue is whether there is the fourth amendment putting any limit on the police use of dogs for detection because in the past, at least up until now, the court basically answered that question "no." in the early 80s, the courts said that, you know, at the airport, they can use dogs to sniff your luggage. there's an obvious danger there. the airport's a different situation. in a case eight years ago, the question was could they use a dog any time a car is stopped? essentially, the court said "yes," and there was sort of two reasons. one is that a dog sniff is not an intrusive search. that is, the dog's not going in the car, but circling around and sniffing.

the other part of the opinion, and justice stevens wrote the opinion, saying you don't have any right to have illegal drugs, and all a well-trained dog does is sniff out illegal drugs so there's no privacy vision at all. that instruct me at the time, and since then, this seems too simple. i remember the history of the fourth amendment was the, you know, the british were trying to extract taxes from the american colonies. they passed a series of laws that said we're going to put taxes on molasses and sugar and tea, and them because the americans didn't want to pay the taxes, they'd use british troops to break into warehouses, break into trunks, and search, and that's what led to the fourth amendment, the principle of unreasonable searches. i don't think the american colonists would have been satisfied if the british said, we have dogs, they sniff out --

they can sniff molasses and tea. i don't think the american colonists would have said, fine, break into our warehouses. it's an interesting question about what the fourth amendment really means. i think one of the interesting aspects that comes up in this case that i don't remember from the case eight to ten years ago is there's a lot of evidence in the briefs that dogs are not always reliable. the court seem to assume that all dogs searches are reasonable, in part, because dogs only can dismif -- sniff illegal drugs, and they will not break into your car or break-ins without good reason, but last year, "the chicago tribune" ran a story that caught my eye. they got data for the suburban police agencies in the chicago area, and it was something like

40% of#d alerts actually were a car stopped, the dog alerts, opened the trunk, and 40% of the time they found illegal drugs. the ma senior -- majority of the time they didn't. hispanic drivers were 25%. if the whole notion is this is probably cause, four out of ten, that seems like possible cause. >> what did they find? dog food? >> the police, you know, view is there's no such thing as a false positive because who knows. you may have had drugs in the car two weeks ago, but seems to me if it's only four out of ten, it's not -- it's undercutting the notion that dog searches are always reliable. we're going to have -- we have four people to talk about this. let me introduce them quickly. daniel spinelli, a clerk for justice breyer a lot of years ago, filed a lot of terrific briefs in the court including

the brief of the nacdl in this case. she's going to tell us a little bit about the actual two cases before the court and the sort of back and forth arguments. a constitutional scholar at the cato institute, editor of the supreme court review. i've been on a lot of panels and read a lot of the writings, and one of the really sharp writers on constitutional issues, and he's going to talk a little bit about how to view the search question here. mark is one of the really national experts on the issue of privacy. privacy of all sorts, computers, internet, enhancement technology. he's the president of the privacy electronic information center, and he'll talk about enhanced technologies that might be affected by this case, and last, and certainly not least, we have jeffrey, an honest to god lawyer, for nearly 40 years

has been arguing and handling drug dog cases in the courts. he's a former president of nacdl, and he's going to talk a little bit about the practical realities of these dog sniff cases. as far as i'm concerned, you can sit and talk here, or stand up. it's your choice. danielle, why don't you go ahead? >> thanks, so much, david. to recap, the court has two cases, florida versus harris and florida versus jardiness. in florida versus harris, the defendant was driving down the street in the truck, pulled over by the police for an expired license plate. when police pulled him over, they noticed he was shaking and breathing heavily. they decided to have a drug

detection dog, aldo, walk around the car. aldo reportedly alerted to the driver's side door. the car was searched. drugs of the type that aldo was trainedded to detect were not found, but a large quantity of a precursor of methamphetamine was found. the florida supreme court held that it's not enough to have a positive alert by a so-called trained or certified drug detection dog in order to have probably cause to then conduct a physical search. in order to demonstrate probably cause -- probable cause existed to search the truck, it needed to show aldo was not just trained, but how he was trained and what his

record of success actually was in the field because as david noted, evidence shows that dogs are not necessarily all that reliable, that there's a high proportion of false alerts, and that dogs vary pretty widely in their success rate depending, in part, how they are trained, how their handler is trained, and how they work together as a pair, and some of the other panelists will go into detail about that question later. the issue before the court in that case, in one line, is a positive alert by the trained narcotics detection dog without any further evidence of the particular dog's reliability sufficient probable cause for a search? the other case is florida veer sis jardines, and police received a tip that jardines was

operating a grow house. they went up to the front door, had franky, the dog sniff it. frappingy alerted. house was searched. marijuana was found. the florida supreme court held that evidence should have been suppressed because the dog sniff by frankie of the front door of mr. jardiness's house was, itself, a search, and it was a search conducted without probable cause so the question before the stream -- supreme court in jardines is a dog sniff a search at all? as david indicated, the court previously answered that question "no" although it's done so in different contexts from what we have here. i'm going to focus a little bit on the second case, jardines. what's fascinating about this case, bun of the things that's fascinating about the case, is

it sets up a clash of two lines of supreme court case law not easily reconciled. one, governing searches of the home and the special protections that the fourth amendment accords to our homes, and the other, which david alluded to, a line of cases saying that drug dog sniffs are actually not searches at all because they just detect contraband. the court stated many times that the fourth amendment has the highest degree of protection to the home is at the core of the amendment protections, and most importantly for purposes of this case, the court held several times that even if police don't physically enter your house, just sort of the paradigm of the search, as long as the police invest gait -- investigative activity, even done outside the house, reveals

details about the interior of the home, that is a search and probable cause for that search is required. this is not a new idea. it goes back to united states versus cats in the 1960s which held outside the place of a telephone booth to record conversations was a search, even those it didn't penetrate the interior of the booth. more recently in united states versus karo, the court held that placing a beeper in a can of ether that enters a home because the presence of the beeper reveals a fact about the inside of the home, namely the prince and location of the ether. most significantly, there was a case in 2001 called "united states versus kilo," and like jardines, it was a case about the suspected grow house. the police went to the house and

used a thermal imager to visualize the amount of heat radiating from the walls of the house with the theory this reveals whether there were grow lights inside. it's a fascinating case. we'll discuss it in more detail, but i'll say the court held 5-to-4, it was quite contested. justice sharia wrote the majority opinion -- justice scalia wrote the majority opinion. it constituted as a search because even though it just measuredded heat radiating from the house, that revealed a fact about the inside of the house -- how hot various locations in the house were. even though that may not seem like a particularly intimate or private detail, inside the home, justice scalia, said, all details are intimate details. the use of the thermal imager that shows information that an

ordinary observer couldn't have perceived is a search, and i think the analogies between the two are obvious. as in kilo, what the police did in jardines was use a method that amplified their senses in order to perceive, in this case, odors, rather than heat, coming from mr. jardines's house, and that, in turn, revealed information about substances inside the house so one would think, looking only at kilo in isolation, that this would be a reel -- relatively easy case. the same law would just seem to apply, but, add david said, there's another line of case law that presents significant problems for that argument. the court has stated or held three times that dog sniffs are not searches. as david said in the early 1980s

in u.s. versus place, the court addressed the case of a traveler in an airport who was detained so that his luggage could be sniffed by a drug detection dog. the court actually struck that down saying that detention was not proper, but it said it was not proper because the person was held for too long. the court could have stopped there, but it went on to say that the sniff by the drug dog wasn't an independent constitutional violation because justice o'connor wrote the opinion because the majority said dog sniffs are jeep rows -- generous. all they do is sniff contraband or the absence of contraband, and therefore, it's not a search. this was not based on arguments by the parties. it was really almost gratuitous not citing empirical evidence for the proposition that dogs

only discover contraband or the absence of it. it was a bit of a throw away, but later, the court repeated that, though, in the highway chess point where -- check point where cared were stopped randomly and sniffed by a drug dog. the court said, no, you can't do this. you don't have a random check point to check for illegal drugs, but, again, it said this sniff by the drug dog is not, itself, a problem. that's not a search. as david mentioned most recently decided after kilo, the court said if a car has been validly stopped for whatever reason like the expired license plate in harris, it's fine to have a drug dog sniff it whether there's any suspicion that drugs are in the car or not, and, again, the court said, look, all that drug

dogs do is detect contraband or absence. no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and contraband, no search, no constitutional violation. now, those cases are essentially based on a factual premise and a legal premise, both of which i think are contestable. the factual premise is that drug dogs only detect contraband or its absence. in fact, the empirical evidence shows that that's not true. drug dogs don't actually detect contraband per se. they detect odors. just to take one example, the signature odor of cocaine, of street koa cape that dogs detect is not cocaine itself, but a volatile by-product of cocaine. it's also present in solvents and perfume. there's an example of a drug dog

alerting to a bottle of perfume inside someone's purse so the dog is not merely detecting cop tray band. the dog is detecting molecules that could expired license eman- emanate from a legal or illegal substance. the reason harris spends a lot of time discussing drug dogs' reliability, and that issue among others so the factual premise, i think, it's clear that it's wrong. ..

in order to preserve our privacy. and it's never been analyzed to look at what the search came up with. just to make this very simplistic, if your car was stopped in the police will inside the trunk and found nothing more than a bag of marijuana, the search obviously wouldn't be valid because it only reveals contraband. the point is that there's been an intrusion into an area that you have attempted to keep private and that is what the fourth amendment guards against. so i think what is going to be really interesting in the oral argument next week and that's going to be very interesting in the decision and jardines is how

the court copes with these to inflict the minds of cases. to some extent the court is going to be forced to confront the weaknesses in both the factual and legal premise of his previous dog sniffing cases and is going to do so in a context where the fourth amendment stakes are much higher because it's a privacy and sanctity of our homes that are at stake. and if the court ends up fighting with the state, i think i'll have some pretty significant consequences. more narrowly, it will mean as david said at the fourth amendment imposes no restrictions at all on what police can do at the job dog. please to be free to conduct sweeps of neighborhoods. in fact, some police departments have heard he done that.

more broadly, the notion, and i think the other palace will talk about this in more detail, the notion that there can be searches that revealed only contraband and bass are not really searches at all has the potential to be particularly pernicious because technology develops all the time. i think mark is going to speak about this. if technologies are developed that purportedly can see her when and only reveal contraband on the reasoning of the previous drug dog case is, the fourth amendment was nothing to say about that regardless of whether we've attempted to conceal these facts, regardless of where they are located. so this is a very interesting, very important case and we'll see what happens. >> danielle, thanks. one of those cynical comments

you hear is that for them in and the key question is can adjust us imagine this happening to time? in other words, if the search they could be subjected to take a search engine. if he/she became a gps services and john roberts come to chief justice about his first question said, do you think would be okay -- could the government attack one of these devices to our cars and truck is all around town? the government lawyer honestly said yes. welcome ended up losing that case nine to nothing. so the question this case is can john roberts imagine a drug dog sitting on his front porch, sniffing. seems a little implausible, but we'll see how the discussion is. >> remember the case a couple years ago when prior was not concerned about underwear and pills and he was another lesson. >> i do, but i never knew what the discussion was all about actually.

you go ahead next. >> in my next? well, thank you very much for having me. i'm a last-minute replacement for mcauley, jim harper. if you're expecting him, i apologize. i spent time on privacy and to lj, but on the other hand look at fewer references to burning man. [laughter] it's really interesting. just like last term in the jones case, the court used, or at least the plurality used as justice alito said in concurrence, 18th century tour allowed to decide an issue of technology. here we have the potential of a decision that has far-reaching ramifications on the 21st century technology, but through very old old or common technology, dog sniffing. we're not even talking about ionic dogs were friendly

neighborhood pet that's been trained and indeed that's one of the issues in the harris case. what did the doggy score on the donkey sats does the donkey have to achieve to be admissible i suppose. rather than that case, my focus also is on jardines, for mcauley, jim, was the author on that. and i think this case presents the opportunity to follow along from jones and having the court fundamentally re-examine its worth amendment doctrine in the sense of the cat status, kind of ironically talking about dog sniffing, but the cats. about the reasonable expectation of privacy. this is testifies in the 60s that the justices, the courts are to look at how a reasonable expectation in keeping that

information, not by a guy going got into booth that was a keeping private his presence or appearance, but he did want to keep this conversation private and still he was wiretapped or otherwise the fbi overheard whitey was talking about and that was unreasonable because he took steps and thought that he was being private. well, the stock turn has sort of working down and we see examples of that in others over the years, where rather than sort of reasoning which are actively or back from reasonable expectation, i think this test has been increasingly hard to apply. so which am has been pushing them that i fully support them at the cato position is, is that we need to go back to first principles. that's our position in any area of law. so what is the search? search is when they speak out that which is otherwise hidden

from plain view. you taken steps either physical or legal, typically a combination of both in the government needs to do something to get that information that is that the rest of skewer. similarly, and by the on my iphone not to check my fantasy football scores from last night, and e-mailed me what i'm supposed to talk about on the straight and narrow. similarly, seizure is the violation of one's property right. not necessarily possess or interest, but what the bundle of sticks. there's lots of things in which you have a property right. for example, in the jones case, even though mr. jones -- antoine jones had possession of the car was driving around come in effectively ceased the government because the vehicle is transformed into a monitoring device fearsomely didymus 100% of his property, but part of that interest he lost. and so, look at the searches and

seizures that goes together. europeans stopped coming in no come you don't have a full freedom to go about doing what you're doing. your clothes are being frisked. there's a search going on and you're also been partially ceased. so this is what i think we need to look at to unpack some of these difficult technological issues that are going to be coming down the pipe, rather than try to apply the subject of test, or even objective tests. it's really difficult to know what's going on. that's why this case is much more like a thermal imaging case that other dog sniffing cases are kind of more traditional fourth amendment line of cases. just as in jardines, the device,

a specially trained dog accesses information that is not in plain view, that is not otherwise readily observable. and so, even though we have a large chunks around an acute and rename them and so forth, when a specially trained, they are no different than where the technological device. you know, from jim i have learned there's lots of developments in technology like the remote paper inspection system with a feature attribute screening technology. there's lots of interesting things that is the government really arguing that because it's a dog that is the exact same function of a mechanical device or electronic device that the police can imagine taking one of these scanners that processes papers that comes into contact with. all of a sudden that's the difference, even though presumably the technology, once it's in use will be more accurate than dogs are.

as david alluded to, and this is not a system may think that we want to be applying to protect our constitutional rights. and so, i think it's open season on rediscovering or creating a dude.turn, rediscovering the old understanding or the textual basis for the fourth amendment, they sure are free from unreasonable searches and seizures in your person's papers and effects. in a digital age, can be comprehended a different way. but since we don't want the government to say that everything -- every little wife i think emanating from my iphone right now or even though i've tried to protect them physically with legal understandings of how i order my business, i think the only way to increasingly that the court is going to be able to process the first of cases is by

following mutagenesis glues property rights view. i mean, that's useful in certain cases, but very few. what if instead of attaching a gps to have a drone following along, antoine jones the whole time. no property, no seizure there in that case i suppose. nor, justice alito trying to fit that case into the regional expectation of privacy box. in the justice são tomé yours concurrence in saying how we really need to re-examine what searches are seizures affect the modern age. i think it might still be able to be decided based on old doctrine, but i think increasingly is akin to modern technology and new understandings of privacy, the court is going to have to come up with something new. >> i really like this brief because it makes i think a very simple clear argument, which is of course if a car is going

along and has a close strachan is going five miles over the speed limit and an officer stopped the car there something in the trunk, of course it's a search at the police officer wants to go into that trunk. maybe it's a reasonable search, but it's definitely a search. for the court in some of these cases have -- you say this is really nothing he can seduce just dog sniffing. it sure seems like an common sense of the term is that minimum a search. and that's the point the cato brief makes very well. >> thank you, david. i decide to begin by thanking you for organizing this event and submitting to important reason the cases next week. also ilya. i thought this had been picked over for the good article titles, but the task will not go to the dog. thank you. i'm putting a trademark on it.

danielle did an outstanding job at outlining refining a good overview of the suitcases and where they fit in the evolution of the talk turn related to drug detection dogs. i'm going to say a few words about epic, electronic privacy information center. my organization that we submitted. we actually are a group of technical and legal experts. we obviously favor of privacy, but that's not really what's driving our brief. we are very interested in an issue that was raised by justice souter and the 2005 case, if you're rich: i case the majority of the court and justice ginsburg wrote in the sense that she thought it was a search because it was invasive. justice souter identified a

different problem. what justice souter had done was look at the reports available at the time of the reliability of drug detection dogs and basically occluded, you know what committee things are are not just infallible. in fact, he writes that the infallible dog is a legal fiction. we were very much familiar with this problem, having spent many years working in evaluating police techniques that are designed to protect the presence of contraband or evidence, let's say in the digital environment. so as we continue this wonderful name in history for this particular line of cases, back in the 1990s, the fbi used a wire tapping technique called carnivore. and carnivore was designed to detect the evidence of the illegal conduct that was transmitted through new

communication technologies. of course it turns out to be an imperfect technique and made readily available to the police a whole range of communications and related to the investigation. so we knew for some time that the so-called perfect search, like the infallible dog, was also a legal fiction. and we felt it was important in this amicus brief to the court to talk about this problem because we see a functional equivalent in many of the new search techniques. the airport body scanners, the detection devices in the digital network searching techniques to the canine problem, which is essentially this, if this technique is in fact imperfect and dusty stack lots of materials unrelated to the investigation, then there needs to be some oversight and accountability from the courts before the government is allowed

to use this technique in the course of a criminal investigation. as many of you know, fourth amendment is not a prohibition on the use of investigative techniques. what it tries to establish to the large requirement to send independent oversight to ensure that these techniques are used in responsible and appropriate way. and are directed towards criminal conduct and not towards the conduct of everybody, which for us is actually the central concern. because you see, if the court were to accept this doctrine in the perfect search and say well, these drug detection that are basically on autopilot and the police will only use them in such a way so as to uncover evidence of wrongdoing and we in the courts don't have to worry about any of that, that's an enormous advocation of the fourth amendment structure responsibility, which is what the courts to make a determination about whether or not police have made the showing

of probable cause. and in support of this argument, we looked at quite a bit of scientific evidence and one of the things we were fascinated to find is that shortly after the decision when justice breyer had raised his concerns, congress asked the national academy of sciences to begin an assessment of the field of forensic science, to try to understand, for example, how reliable the evidence being produced by crime once had entered into various proceedings was and whether national standards people could agree upon for the use of this evidence? and the national academy report, which we site of links basically found that there were lots of problems in this area, that the evidence was not as reliable as corser led to believe and that there should be national standards, there should be natural certification and testing. i'm also in support of our

amicus brief, we found an opinion for the court is justice glia in 2009. melendez diaz actually adopting the view put forward and the academy of sciences and evaluation of crime lab evidence. and we thought that this was significant as well, that the court has come to see the importance of evaluation and testing on that point we think will be helpful in evaluating this case. and then return to some of the recent developments, which i've already outlined. there's been a series of hearings in this senate judiciary committee come back and cap problems related to forensic sciences and the need to improve testing. so at six view here is not coming in now, averse to the function of police are wholly opposed to the use of drug detection dogs. we simply believe that when these techniques are used in our

early 21st century example of canines or five, 10 years out, much more sophisticated electronic-based techniques, there has to be independent evaluation. and in that respect we think the florida supreme court was right to find that the police have not met that burden in this case. >> okay, mark, thank you. you're a corporate lawyer. you're used to stand up and talking to the jury and the judge. >> thank you very much, david. master quick question? how many of you have dogs as pets? okay, clearly the majority. so here's my point. i want to be practical because david, as you mentioned, supreme court justices i have found, including in the case of search and seizure case, a fourth amendment case argued before the supreme court are not realistic to you don't know what really

goes on in real life or they don't want to know. and it's really big, big problem i want to tell you why. those of you who have dogs, you know that a little subtle cue in your part can have your dog sit for work or want to get his leash, or know that it's time to get out. i mean, you don't need to say go get your leash. yuko is certainly come your dog is there. richard agassi you can hold your hand up, too little gesture in your. in a 10 minutes i have a network going to do a demonstration and you'll see exactly what i'm talking about. i want you to know, and i'm a former newsman myself, so i appreciate what you're doing. i want you to know the practical aspects because your readers and listeners are not interested generally speaking the subtleties of the law anymore than in the presidential debates. they want generality. so here's some generalities.

but dotzler, taylor wanted to raise. k-9 dogs. either passable there by sitting on the grass of alert by barking and find that the item. okay, your dogs will fit whenever you want. your dogs will bark whenever you want. well, so will police dogs. so here's how it works. number one, by these two cases from the florida supreme court were beautifully written and beautifully reasoned because the justices in florida for practical. now here's the deal. when the police, first of all, you mentioned danielle, the most important thing. the dogs alert to order, not to the illegal substance. that's the very threshold. look, when you came in today, you push the elevator button. you can hold the escalator rail. when you take your car to a carwash coming to people who washed the car have access to it. i valet parker opens the door

handle. all of these things are ways that odor is transferred. david, you believe is your mission current fee. 95% of the currency in washington d.c., one of the highest rates in any place in the country, actually the highest in this study is infected or indeed that the substance like or other legal substances. where does that come from quiet other things to talk about, including drug sound currency, not only from people using, but if someone touched drugs, those bills now go into general circulation. they go into monday counting machines. all you need to do is touch it and you have that residual odor. that is then transferred to your door handle and getting back to the practicality comes to every justices doorhandle on their car. okay, so number one, even if

it's a valid alert, what does that prove? nothing. having possession of the controlled substances the crime. having possession of an order is not a crime, at least not yet. okay, now let's go further. queuing, i want to talk about that. takes place all the time, just like with your dog. police officers ensure the majority are very honest and honorable. studies have shown that when a police officer believes that there's drugs in the car because the person is a minority member or the person doesn't look right or act right or whatever the officers preconceived thought our come in the dog is much more likely to react. why? i'm not talking about a subtle yanking at the leash on the dog, but it doesn't take much, just like with your dogs. a facial expression from attaching to lease a little too much, standing in front of an item. all of these think the dog is

searching because he'll see how he walks across. it's so easy to keep it out with a facial gesture in the dog reacts. typically now a passive alert and they said. now dogs don't care about ridding the world of drugs, even if they have little vested badges on them as a police, law enforcement. they're just dogs. they don't care about drugs. so why did they alert? why do your dogs alert quiet when your dogs react? they want their toy. he wants you to go to toy, good boy. they watch to throw the ball. they want you to say get the leash and go for a walk. police dogs are the same way. so here's how it works. they know what they alert they get their toy. the trainer, another subtle cue, the document reaches for her pocket and goes at a ball orchis and a little treat. or some dogs are so highly motivated that their owner just goes to toy, good boy, could

what is enough to get the dog site. seniors would have been spared the docs don't have to be that smart to know, gee whiz, all i have to do is say. i get my toy, i get my reward and it's great. said the police dogs get it. they know what the deal is. and here's the other problem. the dog alerted, but there is nothing to dog was trained to alert you when he alerted. it is a false alert from the start. but it didn't stop the dog handler who testified from stating my dog is correct 100% of the time. why? let's go back to the residual odor. what the police say is wow, y dog never makes a mistake, so therefore he must have alerted to a residual odor, therefore it is not a false alert. so this whole circular reasoning means that if the supreme court reverses the florida cases, none of us are safe because anytime a

police officer once to search our car, they do so. now another comment was made by one of her great panelists, that the documents are not searches according to the supreme court and that's true. the problem is that the dog alert instantly leads to a search. if it's in the car, they don't even need a warrant. that means we can go in. my dog alerted? great, we're going to search. or if it's the house get a search warrant. the docs and it's our searches to matter what the supreme court says. now let's talk practical. when the dog sniffs take place, the police number one had done away with videos. the videos which show that the sellers are ridiculous. at one case of the dog on a tired and a police officer said that some alert. i mean, it's absurd. so the police were so embarrassed, they got rid of video cameras and what they do

is if you're the person who's about to be the defendant, they put you in the police car and of course they stand right in front. cannot you don't he was going on. typically a said police will, block off the search. so if your bystander watching, there's another witness their, nobody gets to see what goes on. why does this matter? because in court, only the jockeying. my dog alerted. it was a positive alert. that's another practical problem we have to deal with all the time. in addition, just like people, dogs are not machines. just like people, dogs have good days and bad days. ask president obama from the first debate. dogs aren't always on. people aren't always on. docs can be sick. dogs can smell odors of other dogs in heat. darks consult other shown to deprive the snapshot.

to be sure to because he just picked it up and ate it. all of these things mean that yes, dogs are great for searching explosives, for keeping us safe, but dog alerts should never, ever be the basis to do away with our precious constitutional right, specifically the fourth amendment. as fraud from the beginning and then i just is unfortunately haven't gotten any most cases. the cars irq, two justices, john paul stevens in the great thurgood marshall made realistic comments about what happens on the street and the facts are unimportant here, but the fact of the matter is the other justices didn't get it. it was too much legal theory. we all live in a real practical world, so those are the things i wanted to tell you in the brief time that i had. i want to tell you too much hangs and then i'm going to

introduce our great dog handler and you'll see his dog work. .. dl or unconsciously bad certain intentions and then my gut to the right answer he suddenly just relaxed. now the crowd didn't realize he didn't do anything but he did

and i can assure you dogs are a lot smarter than horses and can pick up on the most subtle cues that we all know, so for those reasons in a nutshell, these cases are an opportunity for the court to really protect all of us. now, i want to have the pleasure of introducing my very good friend, andy. and he came here from california. he is an author and an ex-police officer. he trains dogs. this is bruno, a 4-year-old german shepherd. hughes trained to -- cocaine, meth to ecstasy. don't worry, you are all safe. while andy is making his comments i'm going to make a few practical comments to you about training, about breeding and how police dogs are purchased and how little departments get dogs that don't work in big

departments use them to do illegal searches all the time. andy go ahead. >> i haven't been on the hall listening to all the folks talk about the docs. knowing i'm coming from the opposing side in a sense, you know they properly selected dog who was well trained is very reliable. i know there are a few cases out there just there are doctors that are no good and politicians that are good and maybe even some attorneys aren't good. they make mistakes or do things in the wrong order. in other words use a dog. a dog is really only supposed to be used to find the odor and leave the further evidence that would later on lead us to the vehicle. i have been a police officer for 20 years and i know for sure law enforcement has done a spectacular job everyday. this dog's name is bruno. he asked he does searches in high schools, student high high

schools and unfortunately elementary schools for narcotics and has found narcotics inside of backpacks in and one casey bent on methamphetamine inside a teacher's drawer and the teacher had to be walked out in handcuffs. i have also trained dogs at my cat may. we trained dogs for e. coli salmonella detection which is a microscopic amount of contamination on lettuce so i know the stocks can find my boaters. their noses are spectacular. i'm going to show you the dog doing a search and this is a small location so unfortunately you may be getting searched by the dog here, i'm sorry. hopefully nobody's allergic. if you need to leave now just go ahead and we will just say you went to the restroom. watch the dog's nose as he sniffs them. he is actively sniffing. i'm not going to cue the dog to sit. there's a location where there is marijuana which i have a slide from california but he

will find it and when he finds that he will sit and you will see the dog's behavior change and again the handlers job is well trained to read his well trained dog and to know when the dog is getting to ready to go on a tire. that is their job and we should work well together as a team so here we go. as you can see he goes around sniffing stuff, actively sniffing the signs. you can see the leash is loose but it wouldn't take much. >> it's not going to happen. >> but it does happen on the streets. i will even look this way. jeffrey do you have marijuana on you? [laughter] that is a really legitimate alert. he sniffed the air and sat down looking at the location where jeffrey hit his marijuana.

[laughter] in a little baggie. [applause] all the dog works for is a toy. that is all he gets. the dog is just simply trying to find the marijuana, methamphetamine cocaine or heroin. this dog is trained to find ecstasy and the dog simply thinks it's one of those odors and when he finds it he stops and sits. >> when andy was a k-9 officer at the dog alerted and nothing was found the dog would not get the toy. the dog would not get the reward. but in most instances are let's just say many instances the dog gets it no matter what. as a result the dog has no incentive to alert only when the contraband is there. that is one of the problems. we also didn't touch on one of the problem and that is certification. most of the certifications are completely meaningless. they are typed out on a computer after some private person maybe

qualifies, maybe maybe unqualified sissoko this dog is certified. here's your certification. there is no real certification for handlers, for dogs and dogs and handlers together in many instances in certain departments are great. certain federal government agencies are great but even so they alert to the owner and not to the substance you should be counted at all to justify. >> and i say something? we just saw here, we were all the thinking of this as a search. typically it's hard to say what the dog is doing here looking for the order or the drugs however you want to characterize it is a search which presumptively requires a warrant. ports of entry or being safe like that. if it's not a search then he goes round everybody's house walking on the street looking for stuff or you stand in line in a movie theater to search everybody and again once the

technology gets there at some point maybe it becomes better than a k-9 unit they will just have monitoring stations all over the place and the dog might not even need to be there. i think it's hard to argue -- >> anyone else? >> what else would you all like to know for to see? >> i get asked to look at cases all over the united states with detection dogs. i've been an expert at looking for cases for several years now and the one thing i look at all the time or the training records and of course the certification. we want make sure the dog is trained properly on proper amounts of dark products and shouldn't be trained on residual odors only. getting the best training equipment possible. basically training on six ounces and above meaning a pound or something like that so you don't get a lot of alerts on residual

odors on door knobs. we want the dog to find a pound of stuff not just a tiny bit. >> you think there should be some sort of testing requirement for dogs? >> i believe that in all cases. right now we have bed bugs dogs are so unregulated right now. that is not a real good certification or governing body that looks at the type of thing so there are good dogs out there doing good work basically with handlers with dogs that aren't even trained to find anything. they just walk in and they'd get the dog to sit somewhere and they're able to get paid for doing really nothing. >> day that i had to to a case in u.s. district court in new york and because the judge, the federal judge had received a request he had a dog come in. it was a private company that did it and i watched it because this is something i'm very interested in. it was a complete joke. they cleared the courtroom. comes in and the dog was not sniffing and working.

the dog had his tail up in the air and he was walking around. the courtroom is clear. this is what happens all the time and that dog was not qualified. our government probably paid a fortune for the contract to contracting of contract to have the dog committed every day and it was so meaningless. this is what often happens. a lot of these police dogs are not qualified period but even if they are doesn't mean anything. >> there really needs to be a governing body to oversee everything. i don't have a problem with that whatsoever. the problem is you can't get to people to agree on anything especially trainers. in one case that i had they'd handlers handler signed his own certificate. the master trainer. that is not the kind of stuff i want for my industry so i have a good qualified cord to qualify our dogs for this type of work. >> that's a great idea. i wasn't going to make drucker.

comments about the dogs but it does seem like a mouth these cases the dog handlers always say my dog is 100% accurate and that sort of hard to believe in all cases. >> there absolutely is no dog that is 100% accurate. we are not in dogs are not either. there again the handler needs to read the dog and if the dog sits you need to know whether the dog was sitting because of an order because he walked the dog are excellently cute the dog. there are few behaviors that happen before happened before the dog sits. you will see on the cameras when he is later when he got to the order you saw his behavior change. he knows it's about ready to pop up from somewhere. his breathing will change in his mouth will often close as he starts to smith and those are signs. when the dog is searching a car, there are other mitigating factors. >> you think it would be a good idea and is it okay with you if the searches were videotaped?

i take it there are some concerns that the handlers are queuing the dogs and i would think after-the-fact mimi the defendant or the lawyer would like to sort of watch with the dog did and how -- is that possible and would it be a good idea to require videotaping as the dog alerts on something? by its cheap enough now and in the past not everyone could afford to have a video but it's getting less and less expensive. a light would help because they can also do something with their voice. cameras have been known to change their voices as they get closer to where it is they want the dog to alert. i welcome that and i think there are many officers who wouldn't unfortunately. maybe their rights are being violated or -- but i welcome it and i think it would be a good idea. >> anybody else have questions?

>> i have a question. [inaudible] >> i am wrote a book. [laughter] is called the detection dog manual and you can get it on line. also k-9 detection dog manual. i'm not sure if you will find too many out there that are written in the way that all of you can understand. because there are so many dogs and words of people use. i'm going to let the dog off the leash. i'm not doing anything with the caller but some dog trainers -- but it's written in plain english. good boy.

i saw you had your copy in hand. >> this is great but the reality is on the road when their cars going by there could be a dog on the other side of the street and most of the searches are done with the leash which means queuing -- subconscious or unconscious off leash. >> may i ask the panel is to questions? i am a newspaper reporter so i need a simple answer to these for the sake of newspaper articles. i'm interested in two things. what do you think the courts should rule if you are deciding the case, what should they say and i'm also interested in the question about what is the bad consequence of the court goes the wrong way? i mean why should ordinary americans care about this?

any order you want. what do you think the court should say in these cases? >> well, i was one of the people who wrote the briefs on behalf of the nec dl. i personally believe that what we wrote is correct. i think the dog sniff clearly is a search. the question is whether it is a reasonable search and the court to date has evaded the question of under what circumstances this kind is reasonable by simply saying it's not a search at all. the right thing to do would be to acknowledge the search and go from there. with regard to -- again i think the florida supreme court should be affirmed. i think it's not positioned for reasons that we just heard. simply to say this dog is

trained, there are many different types of training. some work, some don't. there are wide variations of the reliability of dogs and there should be some additional evidence to show that this dog sniff actually constitutes probable cause to believe that there is contraband in whatever areas being searched. with regard to the consequences, i already touched on that a bit. if the court continues down the path of saying dog sniffs are not searches at all, first of all law enforcement will be completely unfettered to use drug dogs however they wish. that could lead to random sweeps of neighborhoods or people limited only by restrictions the fourth amendment puts on seizures. and, more broadly, again, as technology develops, if the

court continues down the path of saying there are some searches that we and ordinarily parlance would cause searches that only detects contraband and therefore are not searches at all. the encroachment on our privacy is going to increase ever further as it moves on. >> i was a little puzzled as to what the florida supreme court really meant or wanted in the harris case. that is the car case and they said, as danielle said it's not enough just to say the dog has been certified. unique more performance evidence that i was wondering how would that work? jeffrey maybe would know this better. every time there is a case where drug evidence is used, the prosecution would have to come in and show what's? that there is some sort of test? he has gone out 100 times and has been right 95. what would be the evidence that

would be enough to convince the judge that this dog was reliable? >> the traditional test for probable cause is totality of the circumstance and they think the state in hair and is essentially advocating don't look at the circumstances. if a police officer gets on the stand and says this dog is trained, that should be enough. we are arguing now, one should look at the totality of the circumstances. they can't be some kind of ers gripes checklist that has to be checked off, but something more than simply the assertion that a dog is trained and that might be a description of how the dog is trained and the record of its performance in training. it might be the record of the dog's performance in the fields. the dog alerted x number of times and it was correct and the

judge or the magistrate can take these issues, take this evidence into account that make a decision based on the totality of circumstances. >> or maybe have a right to cross-examine the dog. [laughter] >> what should the courts say? >> first abolish a time that a search occurred here because the government agents through the use of the dog sniff made perceptible that which otherwise it could not perceive and that will shift the focus of the court to what the fourth amendment calls for and the question of reasonable mess with their the government should have gone on and gotten a warrant. if the court doesn't rule that way, i suppose they could rely on expectations to -- and things like that as i said clinging to the remnants of the test for now but if they go the other way and rule for the state, then that would allow not only dog sniffs

but as i alluded to earlier whenever the government wanted to, all manner of technological inspection, analysis, monitoring and any other type of scenario you can come up with that would warrant a search. >> we saw the briefs and to make the point that police tosca just go down to an apartment in some area, just sort of go down one place after another and stop at every door and sniff and it would be quite a change in the law if you could go into apartments based on something like that. >> marked what is your view? >> well, this case comes at a very interesting time in the privacy world. of course we are still thinking about the course recent opinion in u.s. versus jones, which was the gps tracking case and it was a case that was narrowly decided by justice scalia largely on a

trespass -- trespass and installation of a gps device but there seems to be almost this shadow majority in that case involving the concurrence by justice sotomayor and another concurrence joined by three others, just, justice alito. the reason david i'm thinking about jones in answering this question is that i think this court has become increasingly aware of the role that technology is playing in law enforcement world has clearly shown some sensitivity where some lights need to be drawn. one of my favorite lines that we cite frequently in our amicus briefs and interestingly it's from justice o'connor by the way who is on the one hand wrote row 101993 not even a search but her views on the fourth amendment evolved over time and by arizona versus athens in 1995 case involving backers say of the computerized criminal history records, justice o'connor says

that the police should not the denied the benefits of new technology but at the same time with new technology comes the burdens of constitutional responsibility. and then thinking about this case, you know of course they would want the court to affirm the decision of the florida supreme court but we would also like the court to begin now take a half step forward and say we recognize the value of these investigative techniques but they need to be used with appropriate oversight independent evaluation. mr. falco i think agrees with this point. and if they take that step in addition to affirming, think it will be very important guidance for the lower courts going forward. >> one other sort of related question. we have been talking about the drug marijuana and cocaine which are bad but suppose the issue was, we had heard a report that gas had been set off in the subway in new york and there was

a report that possibly the same thing could happen in washington. and suppose a police on k street of the 14 street cred said we are going to use some detector. every card that comes to the city we are going to do, to see this car possibly -- does that change everything? is that reasonable where a search for marijuana might -- >> in the way i actually think it buttresses the point we are trying to make to the court. you see, our review is good scientific techniques not only protect the innocent from the suspect but also improves efficiency of law enforcement resources. and so you want techniques in your spare and gas example that have actually been tested and evaluated to address the problem that you are trying to deal with. and if you fail to take that step, our concern is in fact law enforcement says we have a terrible problem here.

we can't go through the normal steps with go through to establish fourth amendment probable cause. just kind of stand out of the way and that's in a message to the courts which there was a fair amount, i think poses a real threat. our argument is partly that the greater the need for the law enforcement search, the more emphasis that should be placed on the reliability of the techniques that are being deployed. >> also the purpose of the search matters in the sense that if it's being done for national security purpose i have less problem with it when you can admit the evidence like when the cia interrogates people the purpose is to prevent attack or find information or whatever the case may be and not necessarily prosecuted in court. >> where very familiar with that article and i have to say it's a dangerous argument.

in justice souter's dissent and cabal is for example he reserved the question of whether there would be a different analysis. the court has already made this type of distinction. a random highway checkpoint for drug detection is not constitutional. one purpose of finding drunk drivers who are threatening safety on the highway, maybe. but the court first have to acknowledge that what is going on is a search. the question then becomes, is this a reasonable search to draw circumstances and that is where the analysis might diverge. and i should say one thing, to jeff although i agreed with a lot of what he said one thing i disagree with is that i think

the courts, the court doesn't necessarily know how things work in the real world that they want to know. they very much want to know and so i think that one of the things that is done here that is very helpful is that a lot of the groups have come in and given the court a lot of information about how things do work in the real world and i think that's going to be extremely useful for the court. >> i see may hope that you are right but example the reason that i feel strongly that many of the justices, a majority don't want, for example in my case the details are not that important now when we have time problems that the issue of the search of the vehicle and chief justice rehnquist made a comment. chief what's the problem? driver the vehicle has to do is say stop searching in the in the end the police will stop. well justice marshal burst out laughing and the entire gallery of the supreme court worst out

laughing because the reality is that would never, ever ever happen in the real world. and do you know what? is the same thing here danielle, the issue that u.s. before david was what should they do in these cases? here is the problem from the very get-go. is whether an alert by a well trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is by itself sufficient to establish probable cause? well the very question itself is improper because there is no such thing as a well trained narcotics detection dog. it means whatever and a trial judge or appellate judge or supreme court justice wants it to mean. that is the problem. and so in my opinion, to answer your question, they should uphold the florida supreme court cases but as mark suggests they should go further and say that a

dog alerts by itself should never equal probable cause for a search or to get a search warrant. there must be other objective articulable evidence and then the dog alerts is merely a tool, and a good tool and it's fine and it's great, but it should not be enough because as you know i don't know how many of you are lawyers but in 10 seconds or less when you have a movable object like a car, the courts don't require a search warrant in those instances so all that has to happen on the side of the street somewhere police officer says by dog alerted and they get a full-blown search because under the fourth amendment there is no such thing as a park in search. a search is a full-blown search so that is critically important. that is my answer. >> okay, and any questions from the audience here cracks.

>> for ms. spinelli. you don't call for something as extreme or as far-reaching as mr. weiner was talking about and we have heard here a lot that the problem is usually with the hamper handler and not the dog so tell me how a court would look at this certification issue and then make a decision about the dog? do you just use this test of the supreme court in florida that they came up with her if you have a different view? >> again i think it's hard to describe a particular set of rules and i think the court is going to be very reluctant to do that. these issues issues are validated under the totality of the circumstances analysis and are only submission is that it's not enough to simply say the dog is trained. so, the court can look at how the dog behaves, where the dog was trained, what record of

success that dogs trained at this facility have, how long the dog in the and the trainer had been working together. perhaps most importantly, what is the dog's record of success actually out in the field, where detecting drugs accurately is more difficult than the training environment? we don't advocate any particular school as to which of those pieces of evidence have to be present, and what weight we give to each of them is the decision to made by each court. ..

it's basic. it's basic for the protection of our fourth amendment rights. >> if you are a trial judge coming only see the cases where the person comes in the court because they found marijuana in the trunk. and for the trial judge come you don't say the dog got lucky this time. you will receive the cases where something is found. the other one still going to court. so i think a corporate pay -- really have to tell judges to be skeptical about this because every case before you may seem like the sky was a nasty drug dealer and the dog was absolutely right. but the u.s. judge needs to be that scott wrigley and sort of tell the dog handler and the police, prove it to me that this

dog is reliable. i think that's what's been asked. >> so i'm interest is in the technology she because if i understand the fourth amendment case law, there's this issue about conservative government using technology not generally available in the public realm of some such language. and so i'm wondering if there's an argument for the government here that the dog is actually not elegy in a way that use of a thermal imaging device is. and if so, it seems to me that with two implications. one would be a finding that this is not a search. on the other would be that it distinguished mike johnson would have to detract from your experience ilya, that this would search using enhanced elegy.

so the question is, is there an argument here that use of the dog is actually not technology in the way that the corpus using that word? >> the government has used that argument. i think that argument is not well taken. what the court was concerned with in pileup is that the protection that existed under the fourth amendment at the time not incrementally diminished by the fans by technology or better put, investigative techniques. dogs sniffing -- narcotics detection is not investigative technique that has existed for very long. it's only been in general practice for maybe the past few decades. so i think that the sense in which the court used the term

technology. clearly does encompass the narcotics detection dog and that would be my response. >> well, there's a commonsense view, i think to say, if you go to police officers and men on the street for some high-tech special detection device and it's going to look into what's going on in your house, that seems rather troubling. it certainly did to justice scalia. but a dog doesn't seem as frightening or scary. she's a dog in sniffing campaign. so there is an intuitive sense to say that a dog searched smith is okay in a way that may be a high-tech device the conservative peer into your house, that's different. >> it was interesting in the florida supreme court relies heavily on the analogy to produce the outcome it did. nsa said, the court always finds

the most narrow issues of all, the equivalence risk is fairly strong because we endorsed and that this type of technique deployed by a dog as have others have suggested can be also replicated through mechanical device. so what's the difference from the court a couple years should not be asked to answer the question with the device that's placed in the d.c. matcher station, for example. >> i think the situation might be a little different if all of our dogs in the majority of the room hot dogs, have specially trained dogs. even though dogs are prevalent, especially trained dogs and said he should have specially trained they need to be, et cetera, is better. vicious cycle he could acquire it or not imaging device. in the jones case, all of a sudden smartphones, you know, over 90% of the room had gps devices on a and yet it's still

kind of a special device. so it is a little counterintuitive to think of dogs smm its technology. it's not advanced technology, but it's a searching device polices that most of us don't have. >> when you ask rhetorically with the big deal at the doubt? is not some technical machine. when you're pulled over, and this could happen to anyone in this room, and you are talking out of your car, not asked, told and you come your wife, husband, boyfriend girlfriend come our kids in the mid-ticket dogleg were no i go up and not sniffing you been looking all over, that's not intrusive? to me that's much worse than some kind of the machine. so i don't think we can concede that point. yes. >> someone talk about the need to have a record of the dog in

the field and indication of docs reliability certainly provide probable cause. but then there's also the problem of the residual odors. i was wondering if mr. falco had any sense of what would be a fair way to determine the record that if a dog doesn't necessarily get it wrong, just because he others to a car that no longer has struck senate. >> every search should be documented, no matter whether they find anything or not. there's going to be times the dog alerts feared i had a searcher had to tear apart a crowbar and a thought to see where it was hit. there'll be times you don't have the luxury to do so. so we go where we can without those tools to make come up with nothing. and there's times where it's hidden in a very difficult place for us to prove, right?

cephalic go down. we don't necessarily put false alert and i know that's going to break sam harris, the search come and talk alerted, and a substance found. or no usable quantity. those are those are things you see in the report because we can't prove that there's nothing there either because of those problems with the department in that stuff. although should be documented. the thing about this ever 100%. they're not going to find and from time to time -- is that. how would those records inform whether this type is reliable or not? >> for me, when i'm looking at a case that i get called to look at come it tells me that day and there is honest, 50 some research and nothing was found. i want to see that because there's no way a dog is out there for searches and finds something every time. either that guy or gal is really good at profiling and whatever because that's not just

possible. not everyone i've pulled over was guilty of trafficking or narcotics. such is not possible. >> if you take a step further, let's say the trial judge hears the kid is dog is accurate 34% of the time, which was great. great for a while? should not be probable cause of 34% or 44% or even 54 or 64%? is that enough reason to do away with fourth amendment rights? and please ask yourself another question. when these were filed, who filed on the other side? many, many attorneys general of various state, police canine organizations, all people that have an interest in not having scrutiny for these canine searches. how is that proper? how is that ethical? if they are doing it right, would they welcome scrutiny?

>> just limiting what jeffrey said earlier. we never search people's bodies on reducing our narcotic detection dogs. too many things can happen. we don't small the pockets of the and that kind of stuff you sometimes that's a explosive detection dogs at the airport, but his first mike's is, there are probably some that do that. >> there are. i personally know. >> i'm just saying it's not done a lot and it's not normal. >> we have one situation you may speak to. were talking about two types of situations. one is very dog sniffs out in public permits a warrantless search of a vehicle or person. the other situation is very dogs miss in itself is considered sufficient to obtain a search warrant to search a home. now, you remember when the law was such that when a search warrant was issued on the basis of information provided by an informant on the street, that

the trial judges in reviewing this court would question whether the warrant itself, the affidavit made out a case for the reliability of the informant come as much as they talked today about the reliability and accuracy of the canine. but that last changed, some 30 years ago or so, so now if a warrant is issued on the basis of a dog alerts and evidence is found, that judge no longer has the right to question whether the dog actually was reliable. the mere fact the search warrant was issued is sufficient to justify that search on the basis of the up series. >> that's of course the real problem. in this article we discussed this in detail. and you're absolutely right, which is why these cases are so critically important. as well reasoned as these cases are come in this case oregon in a few other states that are great. they don't go far enough because

the protections under the best circumstances come a talk search equals probable cause computer for the media search or a search warrant does not protect. >> are there any other questions for panelists? >> actually the question i wanted to ask of what you just brought up, of course it was a little too broad -- [inaudible] >> you're absolutely right. the officer affirmatively live about the qualification of his dog. and you can prove that in the course of the hearing and that is an exception to the good-faith warrant. but otherwise, the reality is once the warrant is issued, that searches seemed good. >> i won a couple suppression notions on warrant from three

weeks ago. so it does happen. but what i wanted to ask about, and i agree that the dog in training should not be sufficient. so what i was thinking of the whole 10 people were talking if that's really all police up seersucker say about their informants, whether it in the affidavit, he's never given false information. everything is ever said has been true in much of recovery time intensive narcotics and arrested millions and millions of people and that's all they say. and that is enough for probable cause. the question is two parts. first of all, has anyone on the other side to something like we don't have to establish reliability of our informants. why do we have to establish reliability of our dog? second of all, does anyone else along with me think it's unlikely the court is going to demand more explanation about training at the docks and maybe

the reliability of the ci? the mac well, it's interesting because the state reef actually concedes the police you have to establish the reliability of their informant. and this session advocates for dogs. they say informants lie, dogs don't lie, therefore we shouldn't have to establish that dogs are reliable. so i think it's a matter what happens in the real world, it may be that the requirement to establish informants reliability is not always honored particularly, but the way it's been framed in the brief for the court is that that is required in the case of the informant in the issue is should we do the same for dogs? >> it is required, but only in the sense they make the statement whether it's reliable. there's no way to get to underline documentation to see if he ever has sniffed on somebody who turns out not to

have the things. they make it almost impossible to get the audacity in the context as opposed to a trial. that is not uttered the same weight as the trial, said they never get to question it. is it saying the dog is trained? they just see the informant is reliable. there's no way to go behind the representation. >> you're a little cynical? >> i've been doing this for 30 years. i'm not cynical. >> i think what you're saying is you're absolutely correct. there's no real means to enforce the requirements of the fourth amendment. and i think we'll are going to see and talk about next week is whether our security, in our persons, public comment in the privacy of our home is only as secure as the winds and impulses of a friendly dog.

>> dogs don't speak like informants supposedly do come us and we don't know what they are 32 or why. >> will the court is hearing the suitcases on october 31st. hollow ring. we'll be interested to see what they have to say next week. thank you all very much for being here. [applause]

>> now a discussion on the impact of the hispanic vote in key swing states of florida, colorado and nevada. this forum is hosted by the national association of latino elected and appointed officials known as naleo. from tuesday, the is 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] be mac good morning. we're going to get started with their briefing this morning. the naleo found on election 2012. trenches association of latino elected and appointed officials. virtual organizations. one of the membership of the nation's latino public servants. serving schoolboys, city councils, commissions can the state legislatures it to members of congress and united states senate. the naleo educational fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to

promote the full participation of latinas in the american political process. that includes encouraging residents become u.s. citizens, all u.s. citizens 18 years of age eligible to vote to be counted in the 2010 census as they did two years ago. we also provide training opportunities for latino elected and appointed officials and promote a policy framework to make sure participation in our electoral democracy is accessible to the teen spirit today will we'd like to do is share with you to new reports from the naleo fund with regard to this year's election to go through once again talking about the impact of latino voters will have a november's experience at also like to acknowledge the ford motor company companies represented here by elizabeth brecksville for their event. after her presentation, i'll be joined by two of the most prolific commentators on

politics, latino politics, was joined us in their busy schedules to be here today. maria cardona and ana navarro, both very good friends at naleo and i appreciate them taking time to be with us today. [inaudible] >> thank you. >> and we love teachers. [laughter] >> just don't talk about last night. let's start talking about politics. let's start talking about the impact of the 2010 census. let's keep in mind, this is the first election of the 2010 and emulation with a sense of euro, 50.5 million latinas in the united states. of the census bureau estimates today were up to 53 million. keep in mind the census bureau wasn't reported much by the media. the census bureau reported a

1.5% count in the 2010 census of latinas peered saloon in 50-point i figure we're working with does not reflect the true presence of latinas in the united states. defensive flight to a continued reapportionment of congress and the shift of political power from the northeast and midwest to the south into the last and in fact every single state that picked up congressional seat, just on the strength of the increase of its latino population. let's also remember the big story of the 2010 census was usefulness of the latino population. one out of four u.s. american under the age of 18 is a latino. in states like texas and california, the proportion is even greater. in texas, 40% of the entire population under 18 is latino. in california, 51% of the entire population under 18 is latino, which explains why our electorate is growing this young

people turn 18 years of age and into the electorate. i'd like to talk a little now that the impact latinos have on congressional races. first there's to latinas running for the united states senate. in arizona, former surgeon general is facing congressman jeff flake in the general election to succeed retiring u.s. senator jon kyl is a very competitive race. the former surgeon general actually has pretty good opportunities to be successful november 6th. it's a race being watched nationally in the increase in number of latinas in the united states senate. in texas, former solicitor general ted cruz has excellent opportunities to be elect at becoming the first hispanic to represent texas in the united states senate.

in the united states house, there is currently 24 latina serving the u.s. house of representatives. two are not running for reelection. charlie gonzalez, chairman of the hispanic caucus is retiring from congress. of the 22 latinos who are running from either all or running for reelection of excellent prospects of being reelected or being challenged by the candidates also are his panic. our projections of at least five new faces, latino faces which are in the u.s. congress on november 6, leading to a minimum and increase of three latinas in congress for a total number 27 latinas in the united states house. now, those who are most likely to be elected in november

include tony cárdenas comes city councilman in los angeles. he's run in the san fernando valley, los angeles based district and juan vargas, his friend in the san diego basis. these districts were created by an independent redistricting commission and both of them won their primary under california's new top two primary system. so both of them have excellent opportunities of being elected come november 6th. in new mexico, former county commissioner, michelle grissom is the favorite candidate. should be the first hispanic woman to be elected from new mexico to represent the state. we also expect to new faces from texas. in cd 20, deceived by charlie gonzalez in an interdistrict district created by reapportionment, keep in mind

that texas was the big winner and reapportionment, were picked up for new congressional seats. however, it appears only one will be held by a latino member of congress. there also are opportunities for latino candidates in competitive districts that are non-latino majority districts. three of these are also in california. former lieutenant governor is facing the incumbent over seven from the area, lois steps. this again is a district firm lewis taxes currently held and is a very competitive district and is one where the former lieutenant governor has a strong opportunity to defeat lois capps and the district is closely watched for november 6. in the san joaquin valley, the republican that democrats as a

viable candidate in that district. he has flown the space shuttle and is the son of farmworkers and is not running for congress. in cd 36, the southernmost congressional district that includes riverside county currently held by mary bono mack, dr. ruiz was in an emergency room is challenging aaron at district is reach on becoming less republican, more competitive. in nevada, the speaker to the assembly is also running in a competitive race against an incumbent in the newfound latino majority district three. today we also are releasing a new report opportunities for latino legislatures. remember this is not just a federal election. it's not just about the president hear the congress and the senate. it's also about election as state legislators across the country. today there's latinos running

1039 and senate seats analyses. there are at least nine states were latinas are running for state senate seats. currently there are 67 latinas who serve in the upper houses of the state legislatures. our projections are that we will gain at least 10 new state senators after these elections, leading to a net gain of 10 for a new total of 77 latinas state senators and nine states. in the lower house days, there were latinas running in 21 states where there is a net change in the number of hispanic serving in state assemblies and state houses ranging from ark to maine to florida, virtually throughout the whole united states. it shows changes in their

delegations. the bottom line is there are currently 190 latinos and latinas serving in state houses and state assemblies. the project a net gain of 27 new of the tenets in this houses for a new total of 217 latinas state legislators in the state houses. so that's how candidates are doing. let's talk a latino voters are doing. let's not forget the impact latinos have been to decimate. there were at least four states that one in 2004 that barack obama carried in 2008. much of it on the strength of his latino support. latinos were also very influential in the primaries in 2007 in 2008, with the hispanic vote key to john mccain's victory in florida, sending them on to win the gop nomination in the competitive race between senator obama and senator

clinton, sending the contents onto the primary, much of it much of it on hillary clinton's strength on this support. so they have an impact both in the primaries and also in the primary. we expect to see in 2010, latinas continue to have a significant impact on the american political landscape. in 2010, latino republican candidates did exceedingly well increasing their numbers in the united states house from three to seven and also having latinas select date the senate and marco rubio from florida in two republican governors. brian sandoval of nevada and has anna martinez becoming the first latina to hold the governorship in the united states. latino voters also had a significant impact on to deface it u.s. senate races in colorado

, giving michael michael bennet edge in the the incumbent harry reid the edge over sharing angle. the race was tied for harry reid was behind sharing angle on election day harry reid won by five points. his support from latino voters is over 90 acres in. in 2012, we project that there will be 12.2 million latinos who will vote on november 6. many are actually voting. in fact a party filled out my ballot and have mailed to. i'm one of those early voters in the country to take advantage of the opportunity to do so. latinos account nearly 9% of all voters in the united states. and just as in 2000, 2004, were latinas gave george w. bush the edge in florida an opportunity to win the presidency and barack obama the edge in 2008 by caring the same state of florida and

other states we believe latinas again will be decisive in 2012. again our national projection 12.7 latinas voting in the united states and these are the states with the larger share of latino voters. the larger share in california, florida and texas. as an indication of how impactful the latino vote can be, consider these five states, with a margin of victory is smaller than the number of the tenets or register to vote in those states. arizona was carried by john mccain, were his margin was 8.5%. of the voters in arizona to in arizona being latino. in colorado, florida and new mexico, the margin of victory is smaller that president obama had innovates, the number of latinos registered to vote in each of those states.

these are swing states today and an indication of the impact of the latino vote will happen november 6 and certainly something we'll chat about in a few minutes with our analysts. this chart shows again the turnout of latinas in presidential elections from 1988, uci study and consistent increase in every presidential election cycle attracts very close to the number of latinos registered to vote. the fact is therefore able to register latinos, chants and serve very, very good they will vote. over 70% turnout of registered voters. we also know that we have much potential among our lecture at as a member of latinas who are eligible to vote continues to grow faster than number of latinos who do vote. much of that driven by the usefulness of the latino population, were every 30 seconds a latino turns 18 years

of age on average, 50,000 latinas entering the electorate by reaching voting age. one of the things that has been of great concern to us has been the move that many of the states to introduce new requirements to vote income including proof of citizenship registered to the common voter ids at the polling place and many state have been adverse to make voting more difficult in our view rather than more accessible. have all the states that have implemented these types of us, had also spent in effect today, more than a million latinos would be directly affect date by these proposals. our analysis that we've are these days in the states where these laws are in effect today, because they have either been prepared by the department of justice are upheld by the courts

where they had been challenged. approximate 219,000 voters will be directly affected this november. an additional 835,000 latinas could've been affected by the flaws in precleared by the department of justice or not upheld by the federal courts. many laws are still in debate, some being appealed such as in texas. some will continue to be scrutinized in some of them may yet come into effect. these 800,000 latinos who are not correctly affected in november may yet be subjected to the impact of us moving forward. the chart here shows which states have the lots in effect in 2012 and the types of measures in each of these states and also the states with the measures may yet go into effect after november 2012.

the educational fund is doing all we can to surpass projections of 12.2 million latino voters. we continue to ensure first that everybody has a free and unfettered access to the franchise. were a member of the election protection coalition. there's nothing the nation's only live [speaking in spanish] , wishes 888-39-8682. anyone who calls number can receive information in english or spanish about the voting requirements. they can find out where the commission is and if anybody has any problem in voting, if anybody is turned away from the ballot box, if anybody is so they're not registered to vote, he or she is in fact registered to vote, they can call this

number, 888, 839-8682. will be working with attorneys to make sure were able to respond immediately to any situation where people may be turned away unfairly. we want to make sure everybody has the right to be heard on november 6. were also working in the campaign, which means it's time. they just finished the work. as yesterday was virtually the last deadline in most states, we are working. as a coalition working very closely as well as latino organizations including me familia votes in the educational fund to make sure people have the information and are motivated to go.

the educational fund is also part of a broader coalition called the national latino civic engagement table, where we are coordinating efforts across the country and many state to make sure again we meet and surpass the goal of 12.2 million bettina voters. these organizations include senator for community change, hispanic federation, labor council for latin american advancement, the national council [speaking in spanish] this is the first time these numbers of national organizations are working together in a coordinated fashion to engage in nonpartisan latino community, which is why we believe the projections could easily become surpassed on election day. any information you may have about reports being released, please feel free to contact amanda vazquez or myself.

materials including the powerpoint presentation. i now turn to my colleagues about what all this means them where we are two weeks out from november 6. so let me start with, for both of you the latino voigt be a decisive and impactful coming out to excel. both campaigns have been engaging in various to reach latinas, particularly targeted states and the race has tightened. let's talk first about florida because that's one state have it on the past three presidential election cycles at the hispanic voters made the difference. ana come in your home state, how are things looking regard to statewide hispanic health care? >> they look a little different than four years ago. before we start talking about florida, you said we had to hispanics running for u.s. senate and we can't forget

menendez. that make security, rsi, democratic indulgence. he's also an embrace the hope he wins in new jersey. florida has become more diverse within the hispanic community. we have seen an increasing number of colombians become citizens and be active politically, originally from colombia greasing venezuelans also puerto ricans are important in the crucial corridor and we've got cuban-americans who are the biggest kids on the block, but not the only kids on the block. the candidates they not only have come from a trip to cuban coffee and sit cuba libre scum indifferent to do a lot more targeting with other hispanic groups. a spicy a lot of conversation about free trade that issues important to the puerto ricans

like education and health care. it is why you're saying a lot of time in the central florida corridor, why you see gutierrez in alaska, some of the puerto rican congresspeople come down. so we're seeing a lot of activity. i think president obama, what we see today are a snapshot of today and buscemi can change from one minute to another. today i would say president obama is just up enough, with just enough groups, including hispanics, with a lead that he had pretty enjoyed with john mccain four years ago has probably been erased. the trend continues. i say president obama probably stands to lose florida, but she never council right out because floridians preserve our rights to change her mind.

>> doria, do you agree? >> i certainly agree with the majority in terms of how florida is different today than even i was four years ago. we've seen this trend coming. you know, four years ago, eight years ago, cubans were certainly the biggest on the block and they still are, but there's no question that demographic is absolutely changing. even within the cuban american population, that demographic is changing. a lot there are younger and so won't last into sort of the issue of being their only issue. and so that coupled with the democratic changes that ana has talked about, the impact of south americans, puerto ricans and even mexicans. there's a lot of new mexicans in florida that is changing. >> how do you think the hispanic vote now? >> the research is incredibly

tight. i think that in florida specifically, if president obama continues to focus on his message to the hispanic community, i think he can take florida, but it is razor thin, especially after the first debate, it's absolutely razor thin in the hispanic vote will actually be the deciding factor. >> was sick about this state where new mexico, colorado, nevada, you've been around the country. how are the states playing out in your view? governor romney's advantage or not? >> when you say this day three of the biggest population come to talk about florida, texas, california. i keep thinking if we want immigration done, some of them have to bite the bullet and move to ohio and get thick winter coats and just make the sacrifice for the cause.

the southwest eighth you just mentioned were so very important. such a crucial part of president obama -- candidate obama formula for winning. they are all a lot tighter this year than they were four years ago as well. and i think it's no coincidence that so many of those states, including florida and nevada, arizona, the southwest states have been so hard hit economically, some of the states that have been hit the hardest by the foreclosure crisis. so the economic situation, and hispanics who have been disproportionately acted by the economic downturn is having an effect on this. i'll also tell you, the issue is playing out here is that romney has a lot more money than john mccain did. barack obama was able to spend john mccain three to one, four to one in some of these states.

right now they are pretty even and that is making them have to work harder and smarter. both of these candidates, and as we have a lot more boots on the ground, a lot more resources, a lot more money for targeted hispanic ad. i'm seeing a lot more activity. unfortunately come it took me around me a while to start that to me because he couldn't access the general fund money until after the election. the one who is able to, scenic cobranding and made it a much more interesting race, the fact they were evenly matched on the race. >> the president has been running since a wave. what about his infrastructure? >> said his infrastructure is still at eons better than that romney. it is clearly not romney better than what john mccain had on the ground. but the obama for america

juggernaut is exactly what is in play right now and i think is what is going to go to squeak it out to the president. nsa squeak because it will be a squeaker. let's not forget in all of the southwest states and a lot of pundits talking about is about how obama has built what they are calling the southwestern firewall. i'm not southwestern firewall is because of the latino vote. the kind of support president to bomb injures within the latino community has enabled them to sell that firewall. and i think what that is given and has a lot more options to get to 270, the magic number four electoral votes and what that romney right now. regardless of the momentum that romney had, regardless of all of that, president obama today enjoys a lead in the battleground states and that is because of the latino votes. it was the latina's decision

that came on a couple days ago, basically saying president obama has expanded his support within the hispanic community. >> akin to thinking about the poker wishes yesterday, which is latino at is the estimate of. one of the things we have heard much throughout the election cycle is that it is the estimate sounds, latinos are disappointed, but it's actually picked up. >> we know you procrastinated. what they announced. and there's a lot more going on in the last six weeks. >> let's talk about debate on foreign policy. one of the issues that did not get asked at all last night was u.s.-born policy towards mexico. our largest trading partner, we share the largest order. obviously incredibly important to so many americans here coming out of listening to the republican conversation. what did you make about? >> it actually didn't surprise me. i was disappointed to mexico or

latin america and i have to give kudos to nick romney because he did bring it proactively and he brought latin america up in a way that is actually positive in terms of colin latin america such an important geographic bias in the world for us anything absolutely right. but i also think we have to be realistic. you know, actually got from the standpoint that the fact that latin america didn't come up yesterday as the focal point is good because it means no one is about to start a nuclear war in latin america. it means that there is no genocide happening in latin america. >> some people may disagree. >> that's true. in terms of what you look at a geopolitical, global focal point, i would've liked to hear a very robust conversation about latin america. the president could've talked about how we signed with panama and colombia. he should have talked about how

latin american arrived since 2009. but i was disappointed, but not surprised. >> i disagree with maria on this one. i actually think there is a genocide going on in mexico. i think when you see a number of deaths by drug violence going on just across their border, when you see what they say tests are in mexico, when you see the hundreds and thousands, including journalists and not civilians in mexico, jamaica qualified as a genocide. i also think that the nuclear, we are not developing a nuclear armed anywhere in latin america i hope. ahmadinejad has been of great alliances and is spending a lot of time in places like managua, havana. if someone else is 90 miles away is that tremendous concern. so i think there's plenty of reason to be concerned about what's happening in latin

america. and disappointed that it didn't. anyway though, i've gotten a little tired of hearing every four years, campaigns tell me about how much attention they're going to pay for latin america and neighbors to the south and backyard are closest neighbors. and one completely elects the region. so this now the neglect the debate so the expectations -- the reality is not going to not match the expectations created during the campaign. i do think, and i agree with maria that nick romney has made it one of his talking points, one of his five points is straight and a lot of that has to do with trade in latin america. but i am disappointed in absolute demanded pay attention to latin america. >> will switch topics. let's not forget down ballot

elections would be incredibly important on november 6. had the opportunity to run into the former senator at an airport a couple days ago when she was commenting that the republican party have been successful in recruiting 125 republican candidates to run for state has peered maria, where is the democratic to party doing to support candidates? >> i i think they do in a much better this year at this cycle than before. this is always in something i have talked about in terms that the democratic party needs to do much job of supporting latino candidates. from the standpoint, and you went through the whole list of all the latinos who are running for congress. and that's actually an impressive number. i always believe that both parties, and from the moment i started working in politics, we

need to do a much better job of recruiting and supporting candidates to run in all these races. and i think that it's also incumbent upon asked in the latino community to get out there and to support people, but also ourselves basically jump in the ring, put our name in their come and make sure we sort of look at where the opportunities are. there's a lot of opportunities. a lot of groups have sprung up. i'm on the board of a pack that raises money for the team is to be running for office. i would love to see my latinas running for office. i think ana would agree with me. >> ana, the republican party seems to have done very well with high-profile offices. governorship and significant increase in the number of gop hispanics in congress. with the strategy there this working class >> i think the strategy that's

working, and it's amazing number when you take a look at the amount of -- the percentage of latinos that are democrat and yet the fact that the overwhelming percentage of latinos are democrat and yet, we have five elected republican statewide as opposed to the democrats who have whined, bob menendez. we senator marco rubio. we have brian sandoval and nevada. the sky at the least for to know in puerto rico. and short of a nuclear meltdown, we're going to have ted cruz and texas. i think this success has been to they are not niche candidate. in other words, mark rubio was a mainstream republican candidate. he had to repost the republican base, there it is coming is to cuban hispanics that is not a niche candidate and he is not burdened by being put into

retort for what he is is the latino candidate. you can say the same thing for cruzan immersed in a brian sandoval sacral labrador. who would've thunk there could've been a mormon puerto rican arrested at an idaho of all places? and it's not because that's in hispanic district. he's not a niche, nearly paid hispanic or latino candidate. he is a mainstream republican candidate. we've given them the freedom to deal to do that and we've been able to develop stars they can use that as a platform. i think that's very encouraging and i don't agree with all the policy, but i see it as something that's healthy and wholesome to our democracy. >> connectors at the flipside of that? and i do think it's great that we do bar have my latinas

running, but ironically these are not latino candidates who got the majority support from latinos. >> sometimes they're not even an latino districts. >> let's talk about in mexico. the talk about nevada. i mean, those are huge latino populations and their governors did not get the majority. they got enough latino votes to win. >> one last question before we open it up to our audience here. you were both with us in june at the train to conference and both president obama and governor romney. before the constituency elected and appointed officials. in fact, there only two conferences this summer at which both candidates appeared, naleo and the veteran of foreign affairs. how have campaigns evolved? since we both had a number of conversations in june, here we are to ask him the election. how have these about respect to latinos? >> i think president obama's

campaign has done historically well with latinos. the way his campaign has evolved is exactly the way i would hope that it would have. that's why you're seeing him expanding his support among latinos to be more than 70%, which is incredibly historic. i was in my car the other day and i heard the ad where he is speaking totally in spanish for 30 seconds. and i thought it was a brilliant ad. he speaks very well. my daughter, [speaking in spanish] she was so excited and just wanted to continue to hear it over and over again. i had to pull it up online and have her listen to it. >> that would be child abuse. >> she was enjoying it. and so i think that speaks to the kind of commitment and investments they've made. there has never been any presidential campaign that's invested as much money and resources into getting out the latino vote.

why? because he knows going back the firewall, he knows it is this firewall in the latino vote that is going to make sure that he squeaks out on november 6. >> ana, referred to the romney campaign has evolved. you must've seen night and day from before june, june 2 today. what are his chances of capturing the 37% hispanic vote campaign have said that they need? >> you know, i don't think it's going to get that higher vote unless something happens to my neck in the next two weeks. and i'm not sure that is going to need that higher vote, just because we are now so focused on electoral maps. i think that romney, and it's looking more likely can wind, with much less than the 30% they had aimed for. and i want to say to maria's point, you know, president obama

campaign four years ago in this campaign now has been very good at micro-targeting, including mark was targeting with latinos. but i do hate to burst your daughters bubble, but he doesn't speak spanish beautifully, he repeats, mncs memorizes. >> that's okay. >> i think the message is, look, we know he doesn't speak spanish, or most of us know he doesn't speak spanish, but the effort counts for something i think in our community. you get points for effort. so my advice to anybody wanting to run for office nationally on some of the these states with hispanic vote matters is get yourself a rosetta stone now, start practicing, start doing your enunciation. we give you points for effort and i think it was a smart tactic by president obama. that romney has a much harder time assuring.

>> he said it sounded one of those missions in chile and does speak fluent spanish and he has been using a lot and we have seen mark are targeting. and i've seen a ton more activity from the romney campaign since the convention. as you know, i moaned and groaned months before the convention. i wish it had started before could've made a difference. i don't think it's going to hit the 30% and the lesson learned is that hispanic affairs have got to be long-term, continuous and strenuous. >> among which is just add one more thing. i agree with ana. the reason president obama is ahead in over 70% is not because he spoke 30 seconds is spanish. it's because his policies are the ones latino support much more so than that romney and

that has not changed from june until now, which is why you see that romney struggling to get a bus 25%. not been thinking about this this morning. if mitt romney wins with less than 25% of the hispanic vote, what does that mean for us? >> i don't think it's going to be less than 25. >> even if he wins with less than what john mccain has, and i'm not sure -- i don't think that will happen. i think most of us still support his deportation policy, which has been the highest in history. i think most of us to support his economic policies that have led to a sustained unemployment rate of 10% within the latino community for his ears as president. but he has done things particularly lazy when it comes

at the tram back to wreck it that has been incredibly helpful. it was a sore spot for us. it was a huge disappointment. most of us see through it and realize it's a political measure in a political effect taken just before the election. for the protruding night. >> i think you had a lot to do with it. you should take some of the credit. some like me say, they might have been good politics, bad reason, good politics, but it was in measure. >> at the end of the day, latinas also understand, nine others been disappointed in deportation not getting comprehensive immigration reform that they also understand when a few short years ago you had 23 republicans in the senate to support a comprehensive immigration reform. there's a love and they are